Debunking the Condon Report.

"Our study would be conducted exclusively by "Non Believers". The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that to the public it would
appear totally objective study. Conclusion...There is no secrecy and no evidence that such objects even exist."

Memorandum from Robert Low (before the report was started) - Project Administrator CONDON Report to Colorado University V.P. Thurston
Marshall

From 1966 to 1968, the Condon Committee was commissioned by the USAF to conduct a 'scientific study and investigation' into the UFO phenomenon but
some extremely serious questions were raised about the lack of objectivity and active agenda of the group - especially when a memo came to light from
the Project Administrator discussing premeditated negative conclusions (see above).

The Condon Report

The Condon Committee was the informal name of the University of Colorado UFO Project, a study of unidentified flying objects, undertaken at the
University of Colorado from 1966 to 1968 under the direction of physicist Edward Condon.

Considering its conclusions were instrumental in closing down all official US Government UFO investigations, there's also been some extremely
serious points made questioning the Condon Report's methodology and how many of its final summaries were 'variously misleading, false or
inaccurate'.

Dr James E. Mcdonald make some very good points below in a talk presented to the Dupont Chapter of The Scientific Research Society about Dr Condon's
'specious argumentation' and how he managed to omit some of the most puzzling UFO cases on record - UFO researcher Jerry Cohen also does a great job
in exposing other major discrepancies.

Note: Dr James McDonald was the Senior Physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and Professor in the Department of Meteorology at the
University of Arizona:

Summary of a Talk Presented to the Dupont Chapter of The Scientific Research Society of America (RESA), Wilmington, Delaware, Feb. 12,
1969.

James E. McDonald, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

The Condon Report's negative conclusions and recommendations with respect to scientific study of UFOs are now a matter of public record. I dispute
those conclusions, challenging and criticizing them on the following principal grounds:

* The report analyses only about ninety cases, a tiny fraction of the significant and scientifically puzzling UFO reports now on record.

* It omits consideration of some of the most puzzling cases on record, famous cases that persons such as myself specifically urged the Condon
Project to study. It even omits discussion of certain significant cases that Project staff actually investigated (e.g. Levelland and Redlands).

* Many of those cases which the Report does consider are of such trivially insignificant nature that they should have been ignored on the
grounds that they are unrelated to the Project's prime mission, namely, seeking explanations of the kinds of truly baffling cases that have created
the Air Force problem that led to establishment of the Colorado UFO Project [i.e. Condon report].

* Specious argumentation, and argumentation of scientifically very weak nature, abound in the Report's case-analyses. And, while broadly
charging bias on the part of those who have taken the UFO problem seriously in the past, the Report exhibits degrees of bias in the opposite direction
that deserve the sharpest of criticism.

* To anyone intimately familiar with relevant report-details, some of the cases considered in the Report exhibit disturbingly incomplete
presentation of relevant evidence; in a few instances, such defects seem little short of misrepresentation of case-information. However, I believe
that the latter instances bespeak bias, not intent to deceive.

* Despite all of the above, those who prepared the Report ended up with about a dozen (i.e., about 15 per cent) of their cases in their
"Unexplained" category. Some are extremely significant UFO cases (e.g., Texas B-47 or Lakenheath); yet these Unexplained UFOs appear to have been
casually ignored by Condon in recommending that UFOs be considered of no further scientific significance.

* Irrelevant padding has thickened the report to a bulk that will discourage many scientists from studying it carefully. Detailed UFO
report-analyses should have been the primary content of this Report, yet trivia and irrelevancies, or secondary material, are present in objectionably
voluminous proportions.

* The Report, it must be noted, does exhibit a few bright facets; but these are obscured by its high average defect-density.

* In all, I believe that the contents of the Condon Report fail dismally to support the strong negative recommendations which Condon has
presented in his own summary analysis. The strong endorsement by the National Academy of Sciences will, I believe, prove to be a painful embarrassment
to the Academy, for it appears to be the epitome of superficial panel-evaluation by representatives of a scientific body that ought always to warrant
the prestige its good name enjoys.

"My own estimate is that absolutely no further general progress towards scientific clarification of the UFO problem will come until the inadequacies
of the Condon Report are fully aired in as many ways as possible. I intend to devote all possible personal effort to that objective; and NICAP is in
process of preparing an extended rebuttal report. So small a fraction of the scientific community is currently aware of the potential scientific
importance of the UFO problem that this rebuttal will probably be slow in taking effect; but the Report seems so unrepresentative of good scientific
work, so highly vulnerable to scientific criticism, that I believe its negative influence (except with respect to USAF decisions about Project Blue
Book) will be quite short-lived".

Dr. Condon, although he is named in the Air Force contract as the project's principal investigator, did not make a single field investigation. Nor did
he interview even one of the hundreds of pilots, astronomers, aerospace engineers, control tower operators, and other highly competent witnesses sent
to him by NICAP at Colorado's request.

* Case material ignored

Large volumes of case material was apparently completely ignored,including the deaths of three Air Force pilots involved in UFO chases and a UFO
encounter with an Air Force transport captain who said he believed they were "shot at."

* Use of ridicule

Dr. Condon stated that there should be no attack on the integrity of persons having different opinions on UFOs. Yet, he ridiculed UFO witnesses,
well-informed scientists on the subject, and NICAP.

* Kook Cases Get Coverage

Dr. Condon takes up considerable space in the report discussing numerous hoaxes and "contactee" trips to Venus but did not include, in his sections,
even one strong, responsible case from a good witness.

* Key Witnessess omitted

Among the omissions in the Condon report are the hundreds of detailed UFO sightings by reputable witnesses whose intelligence and credentials make
examinations of their reports essential. Without an evaluation of these high-quality UFO cases any conclusions are meaningless.

* Pilots' Sighting Not Included

Reports by scientists were not the only category rejected by project investigators on the basis of their exclusion criteria. There was wholesale
elimination of sightings by engineers and other technical personnel, including many airline pilots.

* Reports by Police ignored

Among the omissions are reports by police officers and sheriffs' deputies. In several cases, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials also
figured in the reports, such as the one at Redmond, Ore.Other excluded cases in which police officers were involved are the well-known Socorro, N.M.
report by Officer Lonnie Zamora, who observed a landed, egg-shaped object which left traces and the equally well-known police report of an 80-mile
chase of a UFO from Portage County, Ohio, into Pennsylvania.

* Case Material/Significant Data Omitted

Another major defect of the Colorado Project was the meager use it made of the enormous reservoir of case material available to it. Over the 20 years
preceding the project, between 10,000 and 15,000 UFO sighting reports had been recorded. Yet the report treats only 50 cases from this period, or 1/2
of 1% of the available material.

* Credible Witnesses Ignored

undreds of credible witnesses were therefore ignored because "they could not add anything new" to their original reports.

* Secrecy Denied

Dr. Condon denied in the report that there was any evidence of secrecy. NICAP gave him evidence of cases that were withheld, reports whose very
existence was denied, and sightings whose conclusions were changed years later.

So much for an honest, rigorous or impartial study.

As a footnote here's what Dr Edward Condon had to say about possible Air Force UFO secrecy:

Below are other articles about the report including this authenticated government document stating that the CIA were involved in Dr Condon's research
and that he was ordered never to admit it during a SECRET clearance level meeting:

See 4a

Condon fires investigators for positive findings:

The Condon Report on UFOs

In 1966 the Air Force sponsored a project, directed by University of Colorado physicist Edward U. Condon, to conduct what was billed as an
"independent" study. In fact it was part of an elaborate scheme to allow the Air Force, publicly anyway, to get out of the UFO business.­

Mary Evans Picture Library:

The official text of the controversial Condon Report, billed in 1969 as the last (and negative) word on UFOs.­The Condon committee was to review or
reinvestigate Project Blue Book data and decide if further inve­stigation was warranted.As an internal memorandum leaked to Look magazine in 1968
showed, Condon and his chief assistant knew before they started that they were to reach negative conclusions.

Condon sparked a fire storm of controversy when he summarily dismissed two investigators who, not having gotten the message, returned from the field
with positive findings. In January 1969, when the committee's final report was released in book form, readers who did not get past Condon's
introduction were led to believe that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified on the expectation that science will be advanced
thereby." Those who bothered to read the book found that fully one-third of the cases examined remained unexplained, and scientist-critics would later
note that even some of the "explained" reports were unconvincingly accounted for.
But that did not matter; Condon arid his committee had done their job, and the Air Force closed down Project Blue Book at the end of the
year.

Two stunning new revelations have emerged from the collection of 1,200 pages of files copied by MUFON's Project Pandora from the files of the
late Roy Craig, a physical chemist who was a key investigator for the University of Colorado's UFO study. One, it turns out that late in the study a
project scientist wrote a memo admitting that more than 50% of their cases had turned out to be unexplained. Two, proof has now been found
that project director Edward Condon had not in fact read his own report before writing up the report's "Conclusions and Recommendations," the opening
chapter in the front of the report.

Hynek remains as one of the most influential ones to speak about it...after all, he used to be on their team....

Later, he admitted to the mission of basically sweeping it all under the rug. It's people like him that got me to first really dive into the
subject...people who used to be involved in the coverup, who then came forward to set the record straight, even in the face of ridicule and loss of
academic cred....

Originally posted by Gazrok
Hynek remains as one of the most influential ones to speak about it...after all, he used to be on their team....
Later, he admitted to the mission of basically sweeping it all under the rug. It's people like him that got me to first really dive into the
subject...people who used to be involved in the coverup, who then came forward to set the record straight, even in the face of ridicule and loss of
academic cred....

Gazrok, were you cut off mid-sentence like Major Donald Keyhoe?

"The Air Force had put out a secret order for its pilots to capture UFOs. For the last six months we have been working with a congressional
committee investigating official secrecy concerning proof that UFOs are real machines under intelligent..."

Major Donald Keyhoe,during a live TV broadcast on CBS in 1958 in which he was pulled from the air when he began to deviate from the prepared format
of the programme.

You're not wrong about Dr J Allen Hynek mate, a very brave man who actually had the moral integrity (and intellectual honesty) to speak out about the
UFO/OVNI subject -he was also one of the people that first got me interested.

"Before I began my association with the US Air Force, I had
joined my scientific colleagues in many a hearty guffaw
at the "psychological postwar craze" for flying saucers
that seemed to be sweeping the country and at the naivete
and gullibility of our fellow human beings who were being
taken in by such obvious "nonsense." It was almost in a
sense of sport that I accepted the invitation to have a
look at the flying saucer reports....."

"I had started out as an outright 'debunker,' taking
great joy in cracking what seemed at first to be puzzling
cases. I was the arch enemy of those 'flying saucer
groups and enthusiasts' who very dearly wanted UFOs to be
interplanetary. My own knowledge of those groups came
almost entirely from what I heard from Blue Book
personnel; they were all "crackpots and visionaries.'"

"Now, however, documentation which puts the UFO-
U.S. government controversy in quite a new light has
become available. The authors have made revealing use of
documents released through the mechanism of the Freedom
of Information Act and other data which have been made
available to them, often through private sources, which
show that the CIA and NSA protestations of innocence and
lack of interest in UFOs are nothing short of
prevarication."

"The reader must judge for himself or herself just
how far these implications extend, but certainly no one
can deny any longer that various intelligence agencies of
our government were long cognizant of UFOs and the global
extent of this phenomenon. Official dispatches from our
embassies and air bases in other countries to these
agencies, to the State Department, and even, on occasion,
to the White House, bear incontrovertible witness to
this."

"For the government to continue to maintain that
UFOs are nonexistent in the face of the documents already
released and of other cogent evidence presented in this
book is puerile and in a sense an insult to the American
people."

Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs
from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).

As for Dr Condon's report, I really do wonder if there's anyone still out there who doesn't think it was a complete and utter whitewash?

this is the smoking gun that proves the goverment wanted to conceal the truth from the public. they thought it would get them "out of the ufo
business" but what it actually did was prove that there is something to hide !

this say's it all right here.....

The Condon Report on UFOs
In 1966 the Air Force sponsored a project, directed by University of Colorado physicist Edward U. Condon, to conduct what was billed as an
"independent" study. In fact it was part of an elaborate scheme to allow the Air Force, publicly anyway, to get out of the UFO business.­

i believe it was categorized purposely as an independent study so they could claim plausible
deniability just in case the Aliens landed on the Whitehouse lawn.

as mentioned in your Op, Police UFO reports where not included in the report. i discovered this factoid when i was researching the Portage county,
Ohio UFO chase incident.

"The Air Force had put out a secret order for its pilots to capture UFOs. For the last six months we have been working with a congressional committee
investigating official secrecy concerning proof that UFOs are real machines under intelligent..."

Major Donald Keyhoe,during a live TV broadcast on CBS in 1958 in which he was pulled from the air when he began to deviate from the prepared format of
the programme."

Does ANYONE know where a copy of this can be found? I would LOVE to watch it and see for myself. Someone somewhere must have it recorded still.

Also was he still active duty when he did the interview or had he allready gotten out of the military?

ADDED

Ok I found the show he was on.

"On 22 January 1958 Keyhoe appeared on a CBS live television show the Armstrong Circle Theater to speak on the topic of UFOs." His Wiki page

Armstrong Circle Theater 22 January 1958 CBS Live Boradcast

I am trying to find the exact name of the episode now. It would help a lot to track it down. Also if I can find which season it aired. I will continue
to look for this gem. SOMEONE has it recorded.

"Douglas Edwards narrates this filmed examination of the UFO phenomenon with eyewitnesses who have reported seeing the mysterious craft interviewed.
A military official tells how the Air Force investigates the reports and how they've concluded most are misidentified weather balloons, jets and
simple mirages. The episode wraps with the opinions of scientists, some of whom believe we are being visited by beings from outer space."

* Controversy abounded in this episode when CBS made the decision to cut the audio during a speech by Donald Keyhoe when he begins refering to the
Twining Letter. Although initially the network claimed technical difficulties, they later admitted that they were ordered to cut the volume."

This could have been added by anyone but I will see where the twining letter trail leads me

1. As requested by AC/AS-2 there is presented below the considered opinion of this command concerning the so-called "Flying Discs." This opinion is
based on interrogation report data furnished by AC/AS-2 and preliminary studies by personnel of T-2 and Aircraft Laboratory, Engineering Division T-3.
This opinion was arrived at in a conference between personnel from the Air Institute of Technology, Intelligence T-2, Office, Chief of Engineering
Division, and the Aircraft, Power Plant and Propeller Laboratories of Engineering Division T-3.

2. It is the opinion that:

a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.
c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be
considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled
either manually, automatically or remotely.
e. The apparent common description is as follows:-

(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.
(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances where the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions.
(3) Circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.
(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.
(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.
(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.

f. It is possible within the present U.S. knowledge -- provided extensive detailed development is undertaken -- to construct a piloted aircraft
which has the general description of the object in sub- paragraph (e) above which would be capable of an approximate range of 7000 miles at subsonic
speeds.

g. Any development in this country along the lines indicated would be extremely expensive, time consuming and at the considerable expense of
current projects and therefore, if directed, should be set up independently of existing projects.

h. Due consideration must be given the following:-

(1) The possibility that these objects are of domestic origin - the product of some high security project not known to AC/AS-2 or this
Command.

(2) The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these subjects.

(3) The possibility that some foreign nation has a form of propulsion possibly nuclear, which is outside of our domestic knowledge.

3. It is recommended that:-

a. Headquarters, Army Air Forces issue a directive assigning a priority, security classification and Code name for a detailed study of this matter
to include the preparation of complete sets of all available and pertinent data which will then be made available to the Army, Navy, Atomic Energy
Commission, JRDB, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Group, NACA, and the RAND and NEPA projects for comments and recommendations, with a preliminary
report to be forwarded within 15 days of receipt of the data and a detailed report thereafter every 30 days as the investigation develops. A complete
interchange of data should be affected.

4. Awaiting a specific directive AMC will continue the investigation within its current resources in order to more closely define the nature of the
phenomenon. Detailed Essential Elements of Information will be formulated immediately for transmittal thru channels.

This must be the document he was talking about. I am going to try and track the down video clip though. Would be pretty cool to watch.

From what I am understanding a Television show with a title called

U.F.O. Enigma of the Skies cutting someone off for talking about....UFO's he must have said some seriously hardcore stuff!

I also found it revealing that Dr Condon didn't even take part in the investigation and wrote the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section without
even reading his own report - perhaps they were completely premeditated as the memo by the Project Administrator suggests.

I also find it telling that he sacked two researchers for having the audacity to return with positive findings....you realy couldn't make it up if you
tried.

I'd say if Condon's name is to be remembered for anything then perhaps it should for being the author of one of the most prejudiced, bias and
distorted 'independent' reports in scientific history.

The late Dr. J. Allen Hynek was professor emeritus and former chairperson of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University. He was
associate director of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Laboratory in Cambridge, Mass. from 1956 to 1960, when he was in charge of the U.S. Optical
Satellite Tracking Program. Dr. Hynek was scientific consultant to Project Blue Book, the Air Force UFO study, from 1952 to 1969, and in 1973 he
founded the Center for UFO studies in Evanston, Illinois.

If you are getting paid a nice sum of money to investigate anything you are going to drag that investigation out as long as you can especially if the
money is coming down from the govt. somewhere.

The FDA can spend 20 years researching a simple drug before deeming it safe or unsafe for the population. How can a report reach any conclusion by
govt. standards after just a couple years unless the outcome was predetermined? Not to mention a report that could not only have a huge impact on the
entire planet but in the end has a chance, no matter how slim it is, to completely change space travel to galaxy travel in the end.

With all the fake and misinterpreted images/video how can you make a conclusive determination over less than a single percent of information reviewed.
This would be along the lines of saying blood letting works. Sure it does to an extent but not because of the reasons listed at the time this
procedure was performed.

You put together some good material, but unforunately was worth only a couple stars and flags from your peers. This is a shame considering all the
garbage in this forum which gets tons of attention.

I will say that your thread is mainly external text and could use some more substance in the form of your (personal) analysis and writing. But who am
I to be picky...

My question to you my ATS colleagues: Is there any way to put a modern "Condon Committee" together without having the bias? Everyone who has
studied ufology (in any capacity) knows the results of the Condon Study were distorted because of A)Pressure from DOD, NSA, USAF B) Human Bias on the
committee.

I think a modern day Condon Committee would be even worst due to the simple fact that everyone knows the term UFO today. It is synonymous with
"alien," and therefore (automatically) invokes human bias. How do you honestly find individuals today who have never heard of UFOs/Aliens?

Scramjet, thanks for the reply-it certainly is a controversial report and maybe the opposite conclusion would have been reached if those involved had
attempted to be a little more like objective - thanks for the constructive criticism though, you're right about there being too much text and not
enough personal observation.

Ex committee member Dr David R.Saunders makes some very astute observations about the group's incompetence, agenda and motivations:

The Condon Report : A Whitewash.

When the long-awaited Condon Report on Unidentified Flying Objects was issued early this year (1969), it was accompanied by a vitriolic
rebuttal. For on that same day Dr. David R. Saunders published his own version of what went on behind the scenes at the University of Colorado, where
the project was headquartered under the Directorship of Dr. Edward U. Condon.

The Saunders’ "expose" is titled "UFOs? YES" Its subtitle was,

"Where The Condon Committee Went Wrong/The Inside Story By An Ex-Member Of The Official Study Group."

Dr. Saunders is a professor of psychology at the University of Colorado and assistant director of its Department of Testing and Counseling. He holds a
Ph.D. (Illinois) in psychology. Yet he was fired from the Project by Dr. Condon for "incompetence" about a year before the scientific UFO study was
completed.

Great thread. While there may or may not be something of extraterrestrial origin to hide (which I don't think there is anything concrete there) we
can all admit that the government was keen to take advantage of the UFO subject for secret weapons testing and national security items.

Ignorethefacts, thanks for the reply - as some of the statements and links indicate, the motivations of the Condon Committee seem highly dubious and
its almost unbelievable that a scientist would write the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of a government funded investigation without even
bothering to read his own report.

Do you think its any wonder people have such a low opinion of 'government sanctioned UFO/OVNI studies' (and pseudo-scepticism in general) when this
is the best they can come up with?

I think Dr Mcdonald's statement just about sums it up:

"Specious argumentation, and argumentation of scientifically very weak nature, abound in the Report's case-analyses. And, while broadly
charging bias on the part of those who have taken the UFO problem seriously in the past, the Report exhibits degrees of bias in the opposite direction
that deserve the sharpest of criticism."

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of
Arizona.

I also find it relevant that a huge amount of pilot and police reports were completely ignored - as you can see from the links below there's quite a
number of credible incidents:

Interesting declassified document obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act:

HOW TO "EXPLAIN" UFOS TO THE PUBLIC:

This is an early policy document focused on a strategy for "explaining" UFOs to the public and "working" with the media.
For example:

"...for those times where the object is not explainable, it would be well to advise your people to say something on this order. "The information
on this sighting will be analyzed by the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Dayton, Ohio," and leave it at that..."

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.